pier4r wrote: Because the game is far from being alpha in my opinion. Alpha games are normally unplayable.

GFX47 wrote:It's still tagged as alpha because there's a lot of missing features, that's the reason.

No cross-device support, replay system needs to be streamlined, ui speed needs update, training mode rework(in progress), achievements, multiplayer notifications, map editor, survival mode, friends list, and in-app purchases for making the game sustainable. Those are some of the major reasons why the game is still in alpha

pier4r wrote: Because the game is far from being alpha in my opinion. Alpha games are normally unplayable.

GFX47 wrote:It's still tagged as alpha because there's a lot of missing features, that's the reason.

No cross-device support, replay system needs to be streamlined, ui speed needs update, training mode rework(in progress), achievements, multiplayer notifications, map editor, survival mode, friends list, and in-app purchases for making the game sustainable. Those are some of the major reasons why the game is still in alpha

Umm... cross device support technically exists it is just a "work in progress", ui speed isn't a lack of a feature and doesn't belong in this list, notifications are a meh thing and shouldn't determine the alpha tag (maybe a beta tag would be more fitting), a friends list makes little sense imo for this game, and for in-app purchases, while I can agree with them being in the game to make it generate money, that has (or at least should have) the least to do with its alpha status than literally anything else

I'm not against saying this game is still in alpha, but that alone doesn't quite give me something agreeable

Just to give my opinion i would enjoy having ai size limit. But only as an extra leauge. So a) everything stays equal and as unranked and ranked there will be an ai size limit career mode or no limits. And then i would also enjoy different sizes. So one sub 100 one sub 50 another sub10 etc. Would be really great But if you want to add a total ai size limit (so no exceptions) than at least let it be like sub 500 nodes.

GFX47 wrote:[...] more and more players are giving me the feedback that [...] they either feel powerless when facing AIs that are there for a while and handle much more cases than theirs or just don't feel like they are willing to spend enough time refining it to reach that level of hardly maintainable complexity.

Currently, Gladiabots is mainly played by hardcore gamers. With the Skin-Update in Alpha13, GFX probably wants to encourage casual gamers. IMO this won't work, until AI size limits "protect" them from the hardcore gamers with huge AIs. If there was a size limit, they wouldn't give up as fast as they are doing now. (look at all the ghosts in silver ...)

If you want to encourage casual gamers, you won't need 50 or 100 nodes max. I suggest only three gamemodes: 10, 25 and infinity. (Otherwise, there wouldn't be enough players in each mode and too many leaderboards.)

If you want to encourage casual gamers, you won't need 50 or 100 nodes max. I suggest only three gamemodes: 10, 25 and infinity. (Otherwise, there wouldn't be enough players in each mode and too many leaderboards.)

I agree--Gladiabots does not have the active playerbase to overly-fragment leagues.

I am not averse to some sort of size limit/reactivity penalty, but I doubt it will make it much easier on new players--adding cases may be tedious, but it is frequently more straightforward than writing generic conditions that capture nuance. As a week-old player myself, iterating on identifying situations my AI handles badly and adding cases for them has got it to 1650 ELO with clear opportunities for improvement. If I were against a codesize limit and further gains required prioritizing/refactoring, progress would probably be much more difficult.

(Although for specific levels, I would consider 20/50 over 10/25--10 nodes seems quite restrictive, and there is a huge gap between what can be done with 25 and infinite nodes--I would expect 50 to better allow sophisticated AIs while still discouraging combinatorial special cases.

50 nodes is a pretty balanced league, with close battles and occasional upset victories. It would definitely be my favorite league to play in if i had to choose a number, as the more experienced players would definitely be there.

Blothorn wrote:I am not averse to some sort of size limit/reactivity penalty, but I doubt it will make it much easier on new players--adding cases may be tedious, but it is frequently more straightforward than writing generic conditions that capture nuance.

It won't make it easier for new players, but it could encourage them to focus more on creativity and less on boring iteration.

Blothorn wrote:10 nodes seems quite restrictive, and there is a huge gap between what can be done with 25 and infinite nodes.

I disagree: The 10 nodes limit would be a fun challenge for experienced players and a little stepstone for very new players, who can't imagine programming more than 10 nodes, until they started and get addicted. IMAO there is only a small gap between 25 and infinity, but that's just my personal opinion.